[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11142-S11146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, foreign policy to Nebraskans and many
Americans is not theory or some abstraction suspended between
university classrooms, State Department corridors, or congressional
hearing rooms. Foreign policy is the framework policy for America's
interests in the world--trade and commerce, national security,
financial markets, international economics, coalitions and alliances,
narcotics policy, technology, immigration, all part of foreign policy.
Foreign policy is America's future. It represents the complete and
integrated policy that affects every dynamic of American life. Foreign
policy connects all other policies. The world is interconnected. And
the one overarching policy process America has to engage the world is
foreign policy.
President Kennedy spoke of new frontiers in his 1961 inaugural
address. He spoke of the long-term challenges in the long twilight
struggle against communism. Today, just as in 1961, and throughout
history, mankind has been presented with new sets of challenges and new
frontiers. These new challenges dominate after every global
transformation. President Bush's new book deals directly with our
present-day world transformation-- ``A World Transformed''--and we
recall President
[[Page S11143]]
Kennedy's words in that inaugural speech and apply them to the
challenges of the 21st century.
Historical Perspective
Today, as in 1961, America stands again at a crossroads, at a unique
but not unprecedented time in history. We have witnessed other great
global shifts at several points in the 20th century. In the early days
of Teddy Roosevelt, we saw America emerge as a global power. After
World War I, America retreated into a mindless isolationism as economic
depression and tyranny spread throughout the world. In 1941, World War
II again thrust America into a leading role in the world and made us
again a dominant power. The rise of the Soviet Union ushered in the
cold war with its deadly arms race, nuclear brinkmanship, and policies
of containment enforced by American soldiers.
For over 40 years, the world was divided between two powerful enemies
capable of destroying each other and the world. During this period,
hope, opportunity, and freedom were held captive in many nations to
authoritarian rule. Hundreds of millions of people across the globe
were victims of political slavery. And then in 1989 the Soviet empire
crumbled as freedom broke through the Iron Curtain.
In the decade of the 20th century, we have seen great changes as the
world settles out from the cold war. We stand at the edge of a great
precipice. The world is changing around us, under us, above us. The
rate of change is phenomenal, almost incalculable, for both good and
evil. This change unnerves us, it challenges us, and will dominate us
unless we shape the change and lead the force of change for good in the
world.
History provides valuable lessons, but it holds no clear blueprint or
roadmap for the future. The rise of technology and communications has
connected the world in every way. Our economics are intertwined. Our
economies are interconnected. Today we live in a global community
anchored by global economies.
We also face new threats. Unlike the past, these threats do not come
from a single country or a single enemy or a single state; they are
borderless threats. The scourge of terrorism brings with it the deadly
threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The trafficking
of illegal drugs respects neither boundaries nor borders nor
governments. The confluence of economic and national security concerns
has created mutual threats and mutual self-interests among all nations
of the world.
What do we do? Where does the United States go from here? After great
global shifts, there is always a time of uncertainty and instability.
There is no clearly lit path to follow. Different times call for new
solutions to new challenges, borderless challenges.
One thing is clear, Mr. President. The United States of America must
lead the world in the 21st century. We are the only dominant power in
the world today, which provides us with immense opportunity but yet
awesome responsibility. America must lead. America must not be
intimidated by the unprecedented rate of change and uncertainty in the
world. The diffusion of new geopolitical, economic, and military power
that will develop over the next few years will form the world's power
structure well into the next century. Of this we can be certain:
America must engage this natural development, welcome it, and lead it.
Timidity is not America's heritage. Boldness inspires. As George Bush
said, as he accepted the Republican nomination for President in 1988,
One issue overwhelms all others and that's the issue of
peace. . . . One by one the unfree places fall, not to the
force of arms but to the force of an idea: freedom works. . .
. It's a watershed. It is no accident. It happened when we
acted on the ancient knowledge that strength and clarity
[strength and clarity] lead to peace; weakness and
ambivalence lead to war.
Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century
America's objectives in this new century must be to help build
security, hope, and opportunity. The United States and all nations will
prosper in the 21st century if we lead a world of more freedom,
stronger democracies, and unlimited trade and investment. Such a world
is in our national interests. It is in the mutual self-interests of all
peoples.
The next 2 years are especially critical.
They will help set precedents for much of the early part of the 21st
century. Events will occur in the next 2 years that will change the
shape of the world.
The Future of America in the Next 2 Years and Beyond 2000
The future of America into the next century will be dominated by
foreign policy. Because of our interconnected world, foreign policy is
no longer just the practice of statecraft.
The completeness of foreign policy will include a strong national
defense first, and Senator McCain was very clear in his statement on
that point. Second, the completeness of foreign policy will include a
strong economy. And third, foreign policy will include clear, concise,
comprehensive international policies--trade policies--all wrapped into
a foreign policy.
The two essential parts of a successful foreign policy in the 21st
century will be, one, building consensus, building consensus both in
the United States with the American people and internationally by
working with coalitions of willing partners; and, two, projecting
strong U.S. leadership in the world.
Building Consensus through Alliances, Institutions and Coalitions
In the next century, the United States must work to build
international consensus through coalitions, alliances and institutions.
The diffusion of power throughout the world will result in regional
spheres of influence. In this structure and the challenges it presents,
no one nation, no matter how powerful, can singlehandedly control the
outcome.
Borderless challenges will require borderless solutions. The United
States will be most effective when we work with our allies and those
willing to work with us. That does not mean weakening or compromising
our national sovereignty. But we will be successful when we work with
others to achieve our mutual goals. The coalition assembled by
President Bush to drive Iraq from Kuwait was a good example of what we
can accomplish when working in concert with those who share our aims--
all with mutual self-interests.
As we approach the 21st century, America must evaluate its current
partnerships and build new ones. We first need to review our current
global commitments, alliances, coalitions and institutions. Many of
these entities were created to address the challenges of a world that
no longer exists.
The nations that assembled at Bretton Woods in 1944 and created the
IMF and World Bank faced a dramatically different economic system than
we currently find today. The current debate that rages on and on and on
over IMF funding and IMF reform is a timely example of this point.
I agree, as does the IMF, that it needs reform, but what kind of
reform? Not the reform of glancing blows and cheap political rhetoric
and demagogic rhetoric for partisan gain. Today, we are struggling to
define our world's financial and economic infrastructure and center of
gravity, even while we swirl and swirl in its sea of changes. What
should be the role of the G-7? Should it be revitalized? Is the G-7
still relevant, especially since the introduction of the European
Monetary Union?
The United Nations was formed during the beginning of the cold war
and has gone far beyond its original charter and objectives. What
should be the role of the United Nations in the next century? How do we
continue to fund it and at what amount? Is the United Nations
overburdened with too many assignments and expectations? What about
missile defense for the United States of America? Is the 1972 ABM
Treaty with a nation once described by President Reagan as being
``relegated to the dustbin of history'' still relevant? Does this
treaty protect America from rogue nations with weapons of mass
destruction? I don't think so.
We need a debate on this issue. We need to take a clear-eyed,
insightful and penetrating look at these institutions and
relationships. We need to ask tough questions: Are they relevant to the
challenges of the 21st century? Are their objectives still meaningful?
Can they adapt to address new challenges?
If we cannot answer these questions, then we need to change these
institutions or create new ones to meet our
[[Page S11144]]
current global economic and security challenges. One of the relevant
new organizations for the 21st century is the World Trade Organization.
Created to provide a structure for determining global trade practices
and settling trade disputes, the WTO is a good example of an
organization born to deal with the new challenges of the new century.
Regional alliances will play a greater role in a world unshackled
from the restraints of the cold war. They will not be isolated blocs,
but regions of mutual interest within an interconnected world. These
coalitions will and do exist because of mutual economic and security
interests and can play an important role in expanding security, growth
and opportunity in the world. They can help build, encourage and
support new democracies and market economies and ensure hope for all
peoples.
These are critical building blocks for the 21st century. As Hugh
Sidey once wrote:
Hope energizes . . . doubt destroys.
Hope is fundamental to the human condition. Without it, desperation
takes hold. We know desperate men do desperate things. War, conflict
and poverty are the enemies of all peoples. America must pull back the
curtain of the status quo and take a long, thoughtful look at the
needs, problems and cultures of developing countries. If we would have
taken more care and invested more thought and time in Vietnam, we may
not have blundered into that tragic mistake.
The building of new regional alliances will require finding common
denominators of interests within a region. For example, the fate of the
nations in the Caspian Sea region are linked to each other. No nation
will prosper in that area of the world until they all prosper. Much of
Europe has already determined that it is in their mutual self-interest
to link their monetary and currency policies through the creation of a
single currency, the Euro. The conflict in the Middle East will not be
resolved until there is regional peace. Economic prosperity also awaits
that peace.
Regional alliances left over from the cold war also need to be
reviewed. We have done this to some extent with NATO when we added
three new members. But we need to step back and take a closer look at
NATO and at the role NATO should play in a new century. What will be
NATO's purpose? How far should NATO expand? Should it expand? What are
the consequences, costs and benefits of continued expansion of NATO?
Any further expansion must be based on a clearly defined role for NATO.
In light of the current mass destruction and war in Kosovo of which
Senator McCain spoke, and Bosnia before it, one must ask this question:
Is NATO relevant since it is a European security organization? The
slaughter in Kosovo goes on. Yet the world looks on while NATO and the
United Nations stand by issuing empty ultimatums to Milosevic.
One could legitimately ask, What is the mission of NATO in the United
Nations? To stop the butchery in Kosovo? Or after a while stop it? Or
talk about stopping it? Or what? How long will NATO troops stay in
Bosnia, especially in light of the recent elections in Serbska where
Mrs. Plavsic, the candidate of the west, was defeated by the
nationalist, Mr. Poplasen?
We are going to need to build new coalitions to address today's
borderless challenges. These need not be former alliances or new
multilateral institutions. The United States needs to address today's
challenges with those nations willing and able to join us. Again,
America must lead.
Prime among those borderless challenges is navigating a global
economy. The current world financial crisis is presenting the best
minds around the globe with unparalleled challenges. In some ways, we
face a situation similar to when Christopher Columbus set sail from the
coast of Spain in the 15th century.
At that time, back onshore, the debate raged on whether the Earth was
flat or round. The answers were unknown. Only by sailing the
unpredictable seas and safely reaching the new world was Columbus able
to deliver an answer. We are currently navigating the most turbulent of
economic waters. This storm of financial instability has left many of
the world's economies reeling. As of yet, the full brunt of this storm
has not yet reached American shores, but it is out there, and we do not
know what path it will take. Will it engulf Brazil and sweep up through
the Americas? We do not know. We do know that America alone cannot stem
this tide. We will only find a way to calm this storm by working with
the other nations of the world and by rethinking and restructuring
international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank.
Free, fair, open trade will be the engine of growth in the new
century, as it has been for the last half of the 20th century. All
nations must work to break down barriers that inhibit global commerce
and trade. Only then will all the world prosper. We in the United
States must do far more to educate our people and our leaders on this
issue.
I have concluded, Mr. President--and you and I have worked on this
issue for over 2 years--I have concluded that economic ignorance
favoring the short term over the long term and concentrations of
selfish political and economic power are the main reasons why free,
fair and open trade is not universally supported in the United States
or in this Congress.
We must also stand up against protectionists at home and abroad who
would take the world back to the disastrous days of the 1930s. We must
not underestimate this threat, especially in light of last week's
defeat of fast track in the House of Representatives. Economic
isolation is impossible if for no other reason than the world Internet
revolution.
Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose
the greatest dangers and threats to global security in the 21st
century. No nation will be immune and no one nation can fight these
enemies alone. The trafficking of illegal drugs also threatens security
and hope around the world. Those engaging in these despicable acts must
be made the pariahs of the civilized world, stopped at every turn and
dealt with harshly. But we need coalitions built on mutual self-
interest to deal with these scourges.
Projecting U.S. Leadership
While we must work with the other nations of the world, there can be
no leadership by committee. We currently have a vacuum of leadership in
the world. History has taught us that the world is most dangerous and
unpredictable when there are vacuums of global leadership.
Leaders and nations lead through the force of confidence, character,
honesty and trust. Our leadership must be based on credibility. The
word of the United States should be the strongest of currencies in
international relations. The nations of the world must trust our word
and trust our commitment. We must remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt
who once said, ``The one indispensable requisite for both a nation and
an individual is character.'' This gives America the moral authority to
lead, not the religious authority, not the holy authority, but the
moral authority to lead.
Our allies must respect us and our adversaries must fear us. Rhetoric
without actions will result in failure and will encourage dictators and
world instability. Today, again as Senator McCain mentioned minutes
ago, Iraq and North Korea are directly and openly challenging the
civilized world. The United States must have a clearly defined American
foreign policy that is backed with the might of the U.S. military.
Genuine leadership is more than crisis management. The ability to lead
rests on others knowing where you stand.
The guarantor of a nation's foreign policy is its national defense. A
nation's word is only as strong as the military and the will that
stands behind it. The United States must make strengthening our
military one of its most immediate top priorities. Without a strong
military, our threats are hollow.
The Role Of Congress In Shaping Foreign Policy
The role of Congress in helping shape American foreign policy must be
greater as we move into the 21st century. America cannot lead the world
without the support of the American people. Foreign policy and
everything it encompasses must be relevant--must be relevant--to the
daily lives of the American people. Responsibility for
[[Page S11145]]
making foreign policy relevant ultimately rests with the President and
his foreign policy team. However, the Congress must be part of the
development of foreign policy--setting objectives and priorities,
providing oversight and advice, allocating resources and helping set
strategic direction. Congress should be a full partner with the
President in foreign policy. The Congress cannot implement or execute
foreign policy, nor should it try. That is the President's job.
Foreign policy should be bipartisan. America's leaders need to speak
with one voice to the world. We may debate the best course in this
Congress, in committee, as we should, but there is no room for partisan
politics and partisan gain in doing what is right in this Nation in the
international arena. The Truman-Vandenberg relationship is a good
model.
Engaging the American people is just one aspect of a greater role for
Congress in shaping foreign policy. To craft policies that will allow
America to engage in and lead the world, Members of Congress will need
to acknowledge and understand the completeness of foreign policy, the
interconnects of foreign policy.
What can Congress do? Over the next 2 years I propose--and I will be
proposing this to the bipartisan leadership of this Congress--that the
106th Congress, which will assemble in January of next year, start
holding oversight hearings on every facet of America's foreign policy.
Congress should encourage new ideas and new solutions from our best
foreign policy thinkers during these hearings. The Foreign Relations
Committee in the Senate and the International Relations Committee in
the House should coordinate at these hearings, under the direction of
the bipartisan leadership of Congress, and review every multilateral
relationship the United States has, every institution, alliance and
coalition, review the mission, the organization, the relevancy, the
cost, the benefits.
In many instances, there should be joint hearings with committees,
such as Armed Services and Foreign Relations, Banking and Foreign
Relations, Finance and Foreign Relations, and other combinations of
committees. The results of these hearings should be summarized and sent
to the President and his foreign policy team, every Member of Congress,
the President's Cabinet, and be made available to the American people.
The results of these hearings will help formulate America's foreign
policy for the next century.
In the next 2 years, Congress must develop a comprehensive trade
policy and pass much-needed trade reform legislation. Our trade policy
needs an overhaul to meet the challenges of a global economy,
especially our sanctions policy.
Sanctions are a legitimate foreign policy tool but they are not a
substitute for foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions do not work in an
interconnected world. The imposition of sanctions fails to take into
account the long-term consequences for America and ties the President's
hands, giving him no flexibility to react to the unique international
situations which may require delicate diplomacy, diplomatic
maneuvering, or decisive, tough, strong action.
Approving fast-track authority should be part of this trade package.
Congress should make maximum use of blue-ribbon commissions like the
Rumsfeld Commission on missile defense and the Kassebaum-Baker
Commission on gender-integrated training in our Armed Forces.
America wastes a tremendous amount of talent and experience when we
do not use our former highly respected members of Government and
Congress to help us solve our complicated and interconnected challenges
and problems. This will all stimulate and frame a national debate on
critically important issues that will help inform and educate America
on the great challenges, the important, the vital challenges of our
time. Foreign relations--and all that it encompasses--must not be held
hostage to politics or partisan gain. It will not work any other way in
this interconnected world of short-term and long-term danger.
Conclusion
When history records the world, and this time in the world, and the
world's move from the 20th to the 21st century, will it show that
America and the world squandered a most precious opportunity and unique
time in the history of man? Will it record an era of ``inter-cold war''
after 40 years of cold war? A time of world anarchy and growing
disorder? A period when the world, in fact, went backwards and allowed
the progress of the last 50 years to erode? Will it lament
opportunities not taken, and are thus forever lost?
The answers will be determined by the role the United States plays in
the world during the next few years. We do have choices. But the
choices we make first must be based on the values and the ideals of a
just nation. Our foreign policy must be in our national interest--
clearly defined, driven by priorities, objectives, and implemented with
focused strategies. A random conduct of foreign policy will not do. The
President and the Congress must forge a strong bipartisan partnership
underpinned by a strong congressional bipartisan effort.
This Congress must use the next 2 years to help prepare America and
the world for this new dynamic competitive center. America must be
nimble in putting together a coalition of countries allied around the
common interests of civilized people. We must be smart in how we
multiply our power and interest around the world.
The United States must be careful not to overload multilateral
institutions like the United Nations and the IMF. They are equipped to
do only so much. When their circuits are overloaded, they will fail,
and fail dramatically, thus causing great uncertainty, leaving deep and
wide vacuums of confidence in the world. The next 2 years are going to
be difficult years for the United States. They may be dangerous years,
as well. The President of the United States is wounded. He is, maybe,
fatally wound. This will affect his international standing and
leadership. This is of his own doing. America must pull together to
present to the world a unified nation with respect to our global
leadership responsibilities. We must do this so that we will continue
to gain the confidence of the world that gives us the credibility to
continue to lead the world. The Congress will be called upon for
greater international leadership. It must be prepared for this role.
For all our flaws and imperfections, the world looks to America for
leadership because the world trusts us because of our people. Americans
are innately fair and decent people with a wonderful abundance of
common sense. Our system of government allows the fairness and decency
of the American culture to dominate all aspects of our way of life. It
allows the best of our people and our culture to soar high. Yes, we are
sometimes misguided, heavy-handed and even arrogant. But we have this
intangible ``self-correction'' process built deep into our national
psyche. We can and often do ``self-correct''--both personally and
nationally. Which the world sees, trusts, and admires.
It is within our grasp to help shape a world that has the potential
to do more good for more people than man has ever known. This is an
awesome responsibility but one that America is up to if America does
what it always does best--work together. At the end, when the curtain
comes down, and we are held accountable, all that really matters is
what this century's greatest leader, Winston Churchill, once said:
What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble
causes, and to make this muddled world a better place for
those who will live in it after we are gone?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under a previous order, there
will now be 25 minutes under the control of the Senator from Kansas,
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I commend my good friend and
colleague from Nebraska for providing the Senate and all of our
colleagues and all who have listened, and I hope, the Nation's press
and the international press, a comprehensive statement with regard to
foreign policy. We have many Senators who certainly have expertise in
this field, but I know of no one in the Senate who has given a more
articulate overview of what America faces in our role to the world than
Senator Hagel.
[[Page S11146]]
Senator Hagel and I have been extremely concerned about the trade
policy of the United States, not only in regard to the administration,
but in regard to this Congress. In Nebraska and Kansas, States we are
privileged to represent, our livelihood, our very livelihood, depends
on progressive, consistent trade policy. We both know and we both have
talked for almost a year now about the Asian flu, the global contagion,
and how that has impacted especially agriculture--our Kansas farmers
and our Nebraska farmers--but everybody that depends on trade.
We have been very concerned about the lack of funding for IMF and
normal trading status for China, fast-track legislation--which, I must
say, the withdrawal of fast track and now the defeat of fast track in
the House is a terrible blow; it is like shattered glass, if you will.
It is like an embargo. I think we are going to pay enormous penalties
for that. And then sanction reform, as the Senator mentioned. Until we
get our act together, until we get a consistent and positive policy in
regard to trade, I am afraid we will go through some very, very
difficult times.
The Senator from Nebraska has seized the issue. He has given a very
comprehensive view. I want to thank him for it. I hope that many pay
attention. I look forward to working with the Senator in this regard.
____________________